The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled today it could upend a central pillar .. a move with the potential to reshape# electoral maps across the country.

ALI ROGIN: The question at the heart of# today's arguments is whether lawmakers can## use race as a factor when drawing congressional# districts.

Justices must consider whether the## 2024 creation of Louisiana's second majority# Black district violated the Constitution.

Here to break down the arguments and the# case's potential effects, I'm joined by## Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog and David Wasserman# of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter.

So, Amy, how did we get here?

AMY HOWE: So this is a long and complicated story,## even by the standards of redistricting# cases.

So, every 10 years, we have a## census and then states have to redraw# their congressional maps, among others.

So Louisiana redrew its congressional map and# in 2022 it enacted a new one that contained## one majority Black district.

The state's -- out# of six.

And the state's population is roughly## one-third Black.

So a group of Black voters# went to federal court arguing that the new map## violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which# prohibits discrimination based on race in voting## because they said it diluted# their votes based on race.

A federal court in Louisiana agreed with them that# the new map likely violated the Voting Rights Act,## and it instructed Louisiana to draw a# new map.

So Louisiana drew a new map## in 2024 that contained two majority-Black# districts.

A group of voters who described## themselves as non-African American voters# went to court, arguing that this map was## an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,# that it sorted voters based on their race.

And a three-judge district court in Louisiana# agreed with them.

So Louisiana and the Black## voters defending the 2024 map came to the Supreme# Court asking the justices to take up their case.## The justices heard oral argument in# March on the propriety of the map.

They didn't decide the case by late# June, the way that they do with the## overwhelming majority of their cases, and# instead decided to hear argument again## in the fall and asked the litigants to brief a# new question, which is whether the intentional## creation of a second majority-Black# district violated the Constitution.

ALI ROGIN: And among some of the# questions that the justices asked were## whether or not the Voting Rights Act and the# protections in it were meant to be permanent.

Here's what Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S.

Supreme Court Associate# Justice: This court's cases in a variety of## contexts have said that race-based remedies# are permissible for a period of time,## sometimes for a long period of time, decades# in some cases, but that they should not be## indefinite and should have an end point.# And what exactly do you think the end## point should be or how would we know for the# intentional use of race to create districts?

ALI ROGIN: And so the topic that Kavanaugh# was talking about there, the permanence of## the Voting Rights Act, is that something that# featured elsewhere in this argument today?

AMY HOWE: Janai Nelson, who was the lawyer# representing the Black voters who were## defending the map in this case, and some# of the liberal justices pointed out that,## when you're talking about potential violations# of Section 2, you actually look at current## conditions.

So this is not a question of# whether or not there's a logical endpoint.

ALI ROGIN: What are the potential outcomes# here?

How might the justices decide to roll?

AMY HOWE: So there's a couple of different## outcomes.

There's a couple of# roads that they could go down.

One outcome could be to say that Section# 2 is unconstitutional, standing alone.## Another one would be one that Justice Amy# Barrett raised during the oral argument,## which would be to say not that Section 2 is# unconstitutional, but that the way that the## Supreme Court had applied it in the past few# decades has -- is itself unconstitutional.

There was some suggestion# that the Supreme Court could,## depending on the verb that you want# to use, clarify or modify some of## its decisions interpreting Section 2 in a# way that wouldn't strike down Section 2,## but would undermine the power of Section# 2 and the use of race in redistricting.

ALI ROGIN: David, what are the# implications potentially of this## case and how might it affect the landscape# of redistricting around the country?

DAVID WASSERMAN, The Cook Political Report With# Amy Walter: Ali, it's hard to overstate the## potential impact if the Supreme Court strikes# down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,## which is the only provision really stopping# Republican legislatures in the Deep South## from completely eliminating districts held by# Democrats, and in particular Black Democrats.

Already, we are in the midst of a# gerrymandering war between the two## parties where, under the direction of the# White House, Republicans in a number of## states have redrawn or are attempting# to redraw their districts to maximize## their share of seats.

They have primarily gone# after Democratic seats in places like Texas,## Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina that# are not majority-minority districts.

But if Section 2 were struck down, then# the robust number of districts held by## Black Democrats across the South in# states like Mississippi, Alabama,## Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, they# could be eliminated, leaving Republicans## with 12 more House seats and really reducing# the competitiveness of the House overall.

ALI ROGIN: And, David, it does seem# like, however the justices rule,## it's going to make a big impact.# But is any of that going to have## an effect on next year's midterm elections?

DAVID WASSERMAN: That's doubtful.

And that's## because we're likely to get a ruling at some point# in the late spring or early summer of next year.

By then, most states will have seen their# filing deadlines close and a lot of states## will have held primaries.

So it's -- it would be# too late to alter the election map.

That said,## if Democrats do take back the House in# 2026, this could give Republicans an## avenue to undo that with some margin, given# that up to a dozen seats or more in the Deep## South could be eliminated if there were no# protections for minority-majority districts.

And if there were a middle ground# ruling, then a number of districts## that are similarly unusually shaped# alongside Louisiana's Sixth District## could be revisited in federal courts.# And that could take years to adjudicate.

ALI ROGIN: Big day at the Supreme Court.

David Wasserman, Amy Howe, thank you so much,# both of yo.. AMY HOWE: Thank you.